tv [untitled] March 25, 2012 7:30pm-8:00pm PDT
significant. i wanted to make sure that that was made clear. president fong: i will make a couple of comments. i am continually impressed by the technical questions that this commission is able to bring up. i feel like i am intimately knowledgeable about this project and this site. after growing up on the waterfront, spending five years on the port commission when this product was being discussed initially, and watching the project sponsor shift the project, it has probably gone through four or five different changes in response to the community input and some of the workshops that have occurred. i think it has come quite a long way. i also know the project as a swimmer and member of the golden gate swimming and chess club. i will miss the pool for four years, but i think it will come back bigger, better, stronger.
it steps down as far as massing adequately. it's sort of asks for this kind of step down in massing. some of the comments i fault -- i thought were interesting work challenges about whether or not this property owner has paid the right amount of property tax during the last transaction. i want to point out that that came from an article, which i thought was a interesting source carried whether they are wrong or right, i'm not sure if our commissioners should be basing our decisions on the balance sheets of a project sponsore. i thought that was interesting. as far as the comment about developers making money, the developers who need affordable housing are in there to make money. we need a little bit of everything.
a lot of one thing, one way or the other, is obviously not the right direction. i am going to take a position, hopefully representing most san franciscans who do believe the embarcadero has come a long way. we have much for -- we have a lot to go forward with the exploratorium and this will make the embarcadero and much more active area. president buell: i will be brief. as evidenced by 90% of the testimony, it has been directed to the planning commission. the rec and park commission has heard about 10% relating to the shadow impact on the site. what we are being asked to do is assess whether or not the shadows created by this project create significant adverse affects on the park. i thought staff did a good job in establishing the criteria.
part of it is how the shadows occur, time of day, time of year, and location. we have heard from a staff that it is a small fraction of 1%. those shadows occur in the month of june and july between 6:45- 7:00 in the morning and between 6:15-6:30 at night. we normally would not be sharing this time with the planning commission were it not for that fraction of 1%. with that, i want to let the audience know as well as our commission that that is the scope of our interest in this project. we do not weigh in on bulk, height, transit, parking. commissioner levitan: i just wanted to echo my colleague, president buell. this has been an interesting hearing. i am truthful when i say i cannot remember the last time
seven hours went by so quickly. [laughter] i go on road trips with two small children so i know what seven hours can actually feel like. it is interesting because the subject matter is interesting and the testimony has been interesting. it has been varied and diverse and well-thought out and articulate it. my temptation is to weigh in on more of the substance of the issue before us that my esteemed colleagues have far better expertise in. the extent that i am able to vote is what president buell suggested. to that end, i do think that the amount of coverage and the duration of that shadow, relative to all of the benefits of the project, really are such that the shadows are not in the least bit of verse to the area and projects. i look forward to supporting it.
commissioner lee: likewise, this has been a very educational experience for all of us. i would like to also add that that area of san francisco is changing. it is changing at the capitol committee, at the rec and park commission, we just approved the installation of a playground at the park. there are more families living there. that is why we decided to do that project and that will provide some amenities for families with kids. we also recognize that that entire neighborhood has undergone enormous change. i remember in 1989, pre-1989,
that part was under a freeway. it was covered by a freeway. today, of course, that has completely changed after the earthquake. we do live in the city. we have to balance the needs of change with the need for open space and parks. given, on balance, this particular project, the public benefit outweighs the minimal shadow impact upon the park. i would also support, along with my colleagues, this proposal. i do have a question -- actually, with regard to tennis. we have heard a lot of testimony from the tennis club.
regarding the loss of use of the club and so forth. i would like to see if we, as a department, our general manager, can reach out to some of these families. clearly, we have a very robust tennis program at golden gate park. for instance, i was there -- our capital committee approved the repaving of the tennis courts that are now in the golden gate park tennis center, with a donation from the united states tennis association. we have also undergone, through our capital division, repaving and improvement of tennis courts all over san francisco. i would like to see if our general manager could reach out to the families of the golden gate tennis club to see if we
can include some of those families in the public tennis programs we have at sanford and -- at the san francisco recreation and parks department. we do have some very committed staff that are deeply committed to promoting the sport of tennis. i believe that we can provide a public venue for the members of the golden gate tennis club. thank you. commissioner antonini: i move to certify the final environmental impact report. commissioner miguel: i would like to second that and add that i was remiss in not mentioning in my previous remarks the letter presented by peter from will. any individual is spent 16 years as the executive director on ee
has a depth of knowledge of this area of the city far more than i could ever have. for the majority of people who are in this room or have been in this room today. i think that his recommendation should be acknowledged. >> planning commissioners, there is a motion on the floor for item number one, the proposal to certify the final environmental impact report. if the motion has been seconded. on the motion to certify the final environmental impact report. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner sugaya: no. vice president wu: no. president fong: aye. that motion passes 4-2. may i call item 2a?
the proposal to adopt the environmental quality act. is there a motion? commissioner antonini: i moved to adopt the findings. >> second. >> it is for adoption of the findings of the california environmental quality act. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner sugaya: no. vice president wu: no. president fong: aye. >> the motion passes 4-2. i will turn over item 2b to you. item 2b is the ferry park request to consider jointly with
the rec and park commission to establish a cumulative shadow. i will call the roll if there is a motion. commissioner miguel: i moved to adopt the item. >> second. >> there is a motion for adoption. the establishment of a cumulative shadow limit. comm aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner sugaya: no. vice president wu: no. president fong: aye. that motion passes. >> we are still on item 2b and we need a motion from the rec and park commission to establish
the cumulative shadow limit for the park and to adopt the findings under the ceqa. do we have a motion? commissioner levitan: i would move that my colleagues adopt this resolution, including a statement of overriding consideration and mitigation of monitoring and reporting the program and establishing a cumulative shall limit for sue berman park. i move that we adopt the resolution. >> second. vice president harrison: aye. commissioner bonilla: aye. commissioner lee: aye. commissioner levitan: aye. president buell: aye. >> we are on item 2c. do we have a motion?
>> yes. i would move to recollect -- a resolution recommending the planning commission finds eight net new shadow cast by the proposed project at eight washington street will not be adverse. >> second. vice president harrison: aye. commissioner bonilla: aye. commissioner lee: aye. commissioner levitan: aye. president buell: aye. >> with that, the recreation and parks commission will adjourn if we have a motion to adjourn. >> so moved. >> sese >> ok. we're back in session. i think this is the last third of this session. the planning commission is by itself to finish off the other entitlements for 8 washington. commissioners, we are just --
rec park has adjourned following their action. and now the planning commission will consider all of the rest of the items on this agenda. item 2-d for 8 washington is a request to consider whether the net new will be adverse and to authorize the allocation of a cumulative through river park to the project. president fong: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i'd like to move to consider whether the new shadow impact will be adverse and to authorize the allocation of the cumulative chatle. will not be adverse, of course. naturally. and then to authorize allocation of the cumulative shadow limit for the park to the project. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on the motion that the new chatle will not be adverse and to authorize the allocation of the cumulative chatle for the
river park to this project of 8 washington. on that motion, -- [roll call] >> commissioners, item 2 e. the request for general plan amendments. within the northeastern area plan of the general plan. president fong: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i'd like to remove request for a piping plan. >> second. >> thank you. on the motion before you for recommend approval of this map change -- >> [roll call]
thank you, commissioners. that motion passed 4-2. for item 2-f, this is consideration of a motion making findings with consistency with the general plan and priority policies of planning code session 101.1. this, the motion before you, with the amendments that were offered by staff earlier today. president fong: commissioner miguel? president miguel: i prove item 2 f with the amendment as stated by staff. president fong: second. >> on the motion before you for approval with the amendments offered by staff earlier today -- >> roll call] >> on item 2g, zoning map ht 01.
the southeastern areas of the development sites from 84 e to 92. and one portion in 136 e hite portion. commissioner antonini: move to reclassify zoning height and bulk, two areas of zoning map h-201, 1 southeastern area of the development site from 84 e to 92 e and another portion from 84 e to 136 e. commissioner miguel: second. >> on the motion of approval of the zoning map reclassification -- [roll call] that motion passed 4-2.
and finally, on the request for conditional use authorization with the modifications offered by staff earlier today, -- president fong: commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: i move conditional use authorization with the amendments made by staff earlier today. >> second. >> on the motion to approve the conditional use authorization with the amendments offered by staff -- [roll call] >> thank you, commissioners. it passes 4-. mr. president? president fong: that does take us into adjournment of the 10:00 a.m. joint meeting. [laughter] we're going to go right into our regular meeting. >> i just need a few minutes to shut this one down and to restart the planning commission by itself.
president fong: ok. we'll stay right here. >> thank you. >> the question when i started 11 years ago when i started doing resolution work is can anything be presented on a really low resolution device where it is potentially a digital image? can anything be presented that way? or will it feel cold and electronic?
>> the imagery will change. there will be four different sets. it is a two dimensional image. it is stretched out into three dimensions. the device is part of the experience. you cannot experience the image without the device as being part of what you are seeing. whereas with the tv you end up ignoring it. i make gallery work more self and budget and public art work where i have to drop this of indulgence and think about how people will respond. and one of the things i was interested in the work and also a little fearful of, it is not
until you get to the first and second floor were the work is recognizable as an image. it is an exploration and perception is what it is. what are you seeing when you look at this image? one of the things that happens with really low resolution images like this one is you never get the details, so it is always kind of pulling you in kind of thing. you can keep watching it. i think this work is kind of experience in a more analytical way. in other words, we look at an image and there is an alice going on. -- and there is an analysis